The Final Paris Opinions

As you know the unfortunate events in Paris
led to the cancellation of the fall meeting in the ICC Banking Commission.
Following that; the ICC have lead a process for the purpose of approving the
Draft Opinions that should have been discussed (and approved) at the Paris
meeting.

The presentation to be made in Paris was
circulated to the ICC NCs for comments.

On 5 February 2016 the ICC circulated the
following message:

Quote

In accordance with the agreed procedure, the
presentation planned for the Paris session covering Draft Opinions 828-840 was
distributed to National Committees on 7th December 2015 together with revised
wording for 814 & 820.

Based on feedback received, attached are
the consolidated final Opinions 814, 820, 828-831 and 833-840 which have been
approved by means of this process.

It is evident that a suitable consensus has
still not been achieved for 832 and this will be held over for further
discussion at the Johannesburg meeting in April 2016.

Unquote

Below is an overview of the approved and
not-approved ICC Opinions:

TA814rev4 and TA820rev4

These two were revisited and changed after
the final versions following the Singapore meeting. More information here:

The topic for the Opinion is a Packing
list/Weight memo; where the document shows that it is “rev04” … but the C/O
makes reference to “rev03.”

This is not considered a discrepancy.

TA829rev

The question is if the LC is “under-drawn”
since a Final shipment document is presented and the full quantity is not
shipped.

The answer is that it is not.

TA830rev

This Opinion covers a collection according
to URC 522; where the documents are released without payment – and subsequently
the collecting bank receives a court injunction prohibiting it from paying.

TA831rev

This Opinion covers two topics. One is if
the Confirming bank is entitled to receive its confirmation fee if the
beneficiary has not asked the confirming bank to add its confirmation; the
other is whether an LC may use two different languages – and if a bank is
obligated to translate the “other” language.

The answers are that the confirming bank is
entitled to its confirmation fee; and the LC may contain different languages;
and that the bank is not responsible for providing a translation.

TA832

It was not possible to achieve consensus
for this Draft Opinion from the comments from the ICC NCs. Therefore it will be
discussed at the coming meeting in the ICC Commission in Johannesburg.

The issue is whether a difference in weight
between the documents constitutes a discrepancy; i.e. The packing list shows
“Nett weight 630.000 / Gross weight 630.360”

The bill of lading shows “Nett weight
630.000 / Gross weight 630.000”

The Draft Opinion is that this is not a
valid discrepancy. It seems however that many NCs do not subscribe to that
view.

In many ways it is an interesting issue /
case. There have been a number of ICC Opinions recently that seems to “expand”
the interpretation of UCP 600 article 14(d). This one seems to go the “whole
way.” Although it seems wrong to refuse based on a difference of 360 kgs, it is
hard argue (based on the UCP 600) that this is not a discrepancy. If this is
approved without a really good analysis, then it may cause confusion about the
interpretation of UCP 600 article 14(d).

TA833rev

The issue is whether there is logic between
the Nett, Gross and Air Dry Weight; and whether or not the fact that the nett
weight is greater than the gross weight is a valid discrepancy.

The answer is that it is not.

TA834rev

The issue is whether or not it is allowed
to ship “95% of 4 units” where partial shipment is allowed.

The answer is that it is.

TA835rev

The issue is whether an insurance documents
signed by proxy must show the name of the proxy.

The answer is that the UCP 600 does not
require that an agent or proxy is to be named in an insurance document.

TA836rev

The issue is if a CPBL is signed correctly.

TA837rev

The query addresses the following
discrepancy:

“Invoice addressed to Xxxxxxx Heavy Industries
i.o Xxxxxxx Heavy Ind”

Is this a valid discrepancy? The ICC answer
is “no” …

TA838rev

The LC is payable at “30 days after
transport document date” – but the invoice states “30 DAYS SIGHT.” Is this a
valid discrepancy? The ICC answer is “no” …

TA839rev

This Opinion deals with an Air waybill with
the following data:

“Flight/Date”: “LD783/18APR”

Date of issue: 21-April-2014

The question is which date isto be
considered date of shipment?

TA840rev

The LC calls for a B/L by “regular liner
vessel” – and the document is refused because it does not show the words
“regular liner vessel.” This is not considered a valid discrepancy.

The above is a very “rough” walk through
the newly approved ICC Opinions. Reviews of the above are available in lcviews
premium; linked to the UCP 600/URC 522 article that applies to the query.

lcviews includes reviews of all ICC
Opinions issued subject to UCP 600, URC 522 as well as URDG 758.